Former Seattle Mayor: Referendum "a very bad idea for Falls Church"

UPDATE 04/17/08:  The Falls Church News-Press has promoted this important post in its local editorial.  See the FCNP editorial here.  The FCNP  summarized "... Falls Church citizens should take heed of this expert analysis..."  Thank you to the FCNP and Bob Burnett for their support of this small space in the blogosphere.  I am featuring the post again for readers who may have missed it the first go around.  We continue to oppose the charter change out of real concern about the impact such bad public policy, poorly written, and cynically imposed, will have on the future of our small community.     - Mike at Blueweeds.   

In order to get a wider understanding on the referendum, I've contacted people I know professionally who have vast experience with planning and policy issues.  I start by sending them the language of the referendum, ask them some questions based on their experiences and get their thoughts.  First up is Charles Royer.  Charles was elected Mayor of Seattle in 1977 and served three terms. During his twelve years in office he became a national spokesman for American cities in housing, the arts and health care.  He's a past president of the National League of Cities. From 1990 until 1994, he served as Director of the Institute of Politics at Harvard University as a Lecturer at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government.

Bob Burnett: Charley--thanks for taking a look at the referendum--what are your thoughts?

Charles Royer: First, it is just not good public policy to put these kinds of things in a City Charter.   Zoning and Building Code issues belong in Zoning and Building Codes where they can be adjusted according to changing circumstances.  And it is not easy to change a zoning or building code, but changing a Charter, well, that's really hard to do. 

Plus, if this were to pass, it would send a very bad signal to folks who might do development you very much want to have.   

Secondly, even if it were good public policy to put this in the Charter, which it isn't, then the policy itself is not very smart. It looks to me as if it even conflicts with the Falls Church "Vision and Strategic Plan" which I saw on the City's website:  "A harmonious mix of residential, commercial, and retail venues due to the community's focus on smart design, walkability, and human scale."   I think you accomplish that vision by permitting compact, walkable, people friendly development.  Which to me means residential, small business, great streetscapes, and an emphasis on the pedestrian environment.  All commercial-- or a preponderance of commercial development equals a 9 to 5 downtown that is pretty much dead at night.   

Bob Burnett: You've been to Falls Church--any quick thoughts?

Charles Royer: I remember having dinner with you and the family at Maneki Neko in town.  My reaction was that some traffic calming (such as on-street parking), further street beautification, and people living in the center would really help.

Bob Burnett: So, given what you've seen here, and what you've done as mayor in Seattle, what are your final thoughts on this issue to voters?

Charles Royer: Even to an outsider, this referendum looks like a very bad idea for Falls Church.